Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Jordan calls for an international force
Jordan has joined the Sunni chorus of support for combining a ceasefire with the insertion of an international force in southern Lebanon for the purpose of enforcing United Nations resolution 1559. All well and good, but the countries with the soldiers and firepower available are not willing to participate. Germany's position is particularly risible -- it is "willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it..." What a joke.
Here's a little rule of thumb for European leaders who do not want to reveal themselves as moral -- or actual -- cowards: If you aren't willing to put up soldiers with the weapons and rules of engagement necessary to disarm Hezbollah, then don't criticize the means by which Israel does it.
13 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jul 25, 12:25:00 PM:
Frankly - I don't blame the Europeans for not wanting to go there. I don't want the US to go there either. All that will happen is some Islamist lunatic will repeat what happened to our Marines in Beirut in 1983 or Khobar Towers in 1996; and they will blame the whole thing on the Christian/Zionist/Western/ capitalist plot to deprive them of their precious sand and olive trees.
If Israel could deal with it, I would think it would be far more interesting for Egypt and Jordan to supply the troops. They have peace treaties with Israel. It is not a bad way for them to exercise a little regional muscle in opposition to Iran. And it might make it materially easier for the Lebanese military to move south and take control.
By Unknown, at
Tue Jul 25, 01:43:00 PM:
Ignore willingness for a moment. Who has the skillsets?
Egypt and Jordan (I've also read suggestions of Turkey)? I guess the presumption there is that Hezbollah needs reinforcements.
We need to be very careful: verbal opposition to Hezbollah from Arab governments does not mean that Hezbollah is not very, very popular in those same countries.
By 
, at
Tue Jul 25, 01:58:00 PM:
CP and sirius are right. these plans cannot work as devised to stablize Lebanon.
First they are talking about a year or so. It must be for 10 at least. A total committment. They are talking about perhaps 10,000 troop at most. It must be 100,000 at least.
Then the force will be watered down by complex, divided chains of command. It will not be prepared to fight, fight hard, and take some casualties. No. That is just too horrible to think about.
The UN officals who do nothing will critize and undermine any who are willing to act.
Therefore the force will be attacked, nations will withdraw their own, and the troops that remain will look the other way to avoid strife.
If anything is to be achieved it must be done by NATO forces without US and UK troops. Those NATO nations have hundreds of millions of people. They have a huge economy. The resources are there to do it right. And the problem is near their doorstep.
I think we all know what will be done. And it is sad. The same problems will be faced later and at more cost.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Jul 25, 02:11:00 PM:
Why not the Chinese? I think this is a great opportunity for China to show that it belongs on the world stage. Stability in the regions is clearly in the interests of the Chinese, who are concerned about the stability of their energy supplies. The Chinese army is unlikely to be accused of being a stooge of Israel or the US, and is presumably unlikely to be easily manipulated or undermined by duplicitous regional actors like Syria. I suspect they also will be a lot more willing to use force than those blue helmeted pansies the UN is always withdrawing from trouble spots.
By , at
Tue Jul 25, 03:14:00 PM:
why not the germans . . .
why not the chinese . . .
why not NATO . . .
turkey, jordan, egypt - which fools will step up?
you break it, you own it.
you supply the weaponry, you supply the technology, then you run diplomatic interference for israel.
broke it, own it.
iraq will haunt you for a generation. lebanon - you can't begin to imagine the blowback from this one.
continue debating who will pull your chestnuts from the fire . . .
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 25, 03:26:00 PM:
I think, drago, that the United States is just fine with Israel waging war in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is sufficiently damaged that it will take a long time to recover. But then, we are not very worked up over "proportionality." My point was a bit different -- there are lots of countries in the world in a position to incentivize Israel to change its policies. They should do so, rather than just complain.
As for blowback, I am far more interested in delivering blowback than worrying about the blowback coming our way. All the people who worry about blowback against American policy should at least acknowledge that there has been plenty of blowback against the Islamists in the last five years. Blowback goes both ways, even if few on the left acknowlege it.
By , at
Tue Jul 25, 03:42:00 PM:
"As for blowback, I am far more interested in delivering blowback than worrying about the blowback coming our way."
fair enough. you're prepared to take the punches, no problem as long as you can dole them out. 9/11 was just a blip - three thousand casualties, and you've done multiples of that figure since then.
you've got the biggest, toughest, strongest killer punches on the planet.
and always - always - always - because it's where they live and they've got nowhere else to go - the pinprick punchers bury their copious numbers of dead and carry on, long after the heartland is tired of the blood and wants someone else to sort it out. the germans or the chinese . . . NATO . . . the turks . . . the elves . . .
truly, good luck with it all - it's a dreadful hole to be in.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jul 25, 05:28:00 PM:
Drago - 9/11 wasn't the blip you describe. It was the catalyst to begin to deliver blowback to the Middle East - the straw which broke the cameljockey's back. Until then, we put up with all sorts of nonsense and did nothing in return -- juast ask these fascist islamic idiots, they'll tell you -- "the infidels, the Americans, they run. We hit them in Beirut, they run. Somalia, they run. Tehran. They run. Israelis? Defeated in Lebanon.
On and on the drivel goes, until they hit you at home. No more. Henceforth, we accept the war they have been waging for 25+ years, and we pound them back. Disproportionately.
By Habu, at
Tue Jul 25, 05:43:00 PM:
There are far too few central american and south american countries doing international peace keeping.
I mean their troops can stay WIDE awake for days chewing coca leaves and if the force remains unified there won't be much need for Bean-o. So i say lets give guacamole a try ..con mucho gusto. i mean anybody got an idea thats original out there or it it the same old ,"let koffi do it crowd"**
** absurd isn't it? the entire post has as a surreal aspect to it as does the sense that the ME has had over the last thousand years...but don't worry Harvar and Yale diplomats will cure all the ills ... now who wants more dip?
By Papa Ray, at
Tue Jul 25, 07:10:00 PM:
I don't want any dip, go make me some really hot salsa.
Then we are going to have a world wide announcement.
Recruitment starts next week for the "Warriors of the World".
Requirements for recruits are as follows.
Can not believe in Islam.
Can not have any ties with leftists, liberals or commies.
Can not believe in multi-culture.
Must hate Soy and tufu.
Must like outdoor b-b-qs and pork.
Must want an American Muscle car.
Must have been raised shooting at animals and signs.
Must want to rid the world of terrorists and their ilk.
Must be willing to kill at least one hundred terrorists a month (you get Sundays off from this).
Must like living off the land, living rough and tough.
Must be able to walk a straight line and touch your nose after half a bottle of white lighting.
Must be open minded about changing and challenging requirements.
Term of enlistment- until there are no terrorsts left.
Places of service will vary and will change without notice.
Pay is US$6000.00 a month deposited in an account which will not be accessable until enlistment is over.
Apply Now, other benifits included, but not expressed here.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 25, 08:09:00 PM:
Papa Ray, I know some pretty tough Jews who would meet every requirement except the need to eat pork and (perhaps) the "white lightening" standard. I think you need a waiver policy.
By , at
Tue Jul 25, 09:28:00 PM:
Why not the Chinese?
China repeatedly says they will not do this stuff. Period. At least there are no weasel words in their policy.
They also have no logistics to the area. Look at the map. Who is likely to make it easy for them. Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran? Each has some quarrel with China and/or historic reasons for not wanting Chinese troops anywhere around.
But the logistics could be overcome.
It is really going to be NATO or the EU nations. And I exclude the US and UK because of our Iraq role and Muslim distrust. NATO is providing some help in Afganistan and down in Kosovo. Good.
Yet overall, few in Europe acknowledge that real unpleasant events can require real unpleasant efforts. Efforts beyond a few hundred or a thousand troops. And casualties may be beyond the dozen or so a year that seem to be their limit. Nothing wrong with their soldiers. It is still just easier for their public not to think about it.
I see no skill set involving African or South American nations that can help stablize Lebanon.
By , at
Wed Jul 26, 06:41:00 AM:
"you break it, you own it."
Yep. And the response is:
"It's broken; throw it the trash."
All of the diplomatic posturing is an attempt to avoid saying that. The international force (UNIFIL) has been in Lebanon since 1978. Its accomplishments to date have been...nothing.
